H DASAPPA AND SONS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the petitioner has assailed the proposed action of the respondent-State of Karnataka and its officers in the Excise Department directing re-auction of bids which had once been confirmed in favour of the petitioner on the sole ground that respondents 22 to 35 are also defaulters but whose bics at the auctions, confirmed in thier favour have not been subjected to reauction, and therefore, the right of the petitioner for equal treatment assured under Article 14 of the Constitution has not been meted out to it (Form of Partners).

(2.) It is difficult to envisage discrimination when the law is given effect to. If the challenge is to the law on the ground that it discriminates then that could be examined. But, in the enforcement of the law if there has been discrimination, it cannot be complainsd of by one who admittedly stands disqualified by the law.

(3.) Reliance in this behalf placed by Sri Narasimha Murthy, on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vishundas Hundumal etc. v The State of Madhyapradesh and others (A.I.R. 1981 S C. 1636) is really not of much assistance to support the claim made by the petitioner. It was conceded there that the Nationalisation of certain routes for the exclusive operation of the State under taking under Chapter-IV (A) of the M.V. Act had resulted in the discrimination of some others who had been permitted to operate on the very nationalised routes. That was stated to be on account of inadvertence or over-sight on the part of the Government agency. in that circumstance, the Supreme Court observed that denial of equal protection flowed from State action and had the direct impact on the fundamental rights of the petitioners therein. Therefore, the Supreme Court made what they described as the constructive approach by eliminating the discrimination by permitting the petitioners also 10 operate on those nationalised routes. Now that constructive approach cannot be made here. if it is made then this court will become a party to the violation of the law which prohibits defaulters to participate at excise auctions. Then, one cannot loose sight of the fact that it was this Court in another Writ Petition which set aside the auctions in favour of the petitioner on the ground, it was disqualified to bid at the relevant time. Therefore, this petition is rejected. Writ Petition is rejected.